Poll (Should I Do This?) at DVinfo.net

Darin Holiday · September 29th, 2005, 04:08 PM

I am thinking about buying 3 Panasonic AG-DVD100a's. I do wedding video productions full-time.

Thanks

Darin Holiday · September 29th, 2005, 04:09 PM

I mean AG-DVX100a's.

Glen Elliott · September 29th, 2005, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darin Holiday

I mean AG-DVX100a's.

Not to sound like a broken-record but I highly suggest going 1 PD-170 and 2 VX2100's or any combination of PD's and VX's for that matter. They are simply the best wedding cam for the money, bar none.

Bob Costa · September 29th, 2005, 09:12 PM

OTOH, if you can deal with the light level differences, I think the DVX has picture options and control that blows away every other camera out there. I have never done a side-by-sde for light levels, or seen one done that was unbiased (optimizing each camera with different approach as needed).

Pat Sherman · September 30th, 2005, 06:51 AM

I for one would put my money on the PD-150/170 against the panny for low light and still having good saturation anytime.. I think the combo suggested would give you a good aresenal of tools..

Craig Terott · September 30th, 2005, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darin Holiday

I am thinking about buying 3 Panasonic AG-DVD100a's. I do wedding video productions full-time.

Thanks

Any company name with "cinema" in my mind implies the film look and for that you either shoot 24p or you spend silly amounts of time converting to 24p in post. So my guess that you're probably going to get the Panny's if you haven't already... and btw, you've got a pretty slick website for someone who doesn't even own cameras? ...or what cameras do you own now?

Darin Holiday · September 30th, 2005, 08:01 AM

I didn't mean to imply that I am a newbie. I am trying to emulate film as much as possible. I like the thought process behind the DVX and I think the "look" would suit my needs, but I'm not sure about the performance, (low-light, auto focus in progressive mode, etc...) and thanks for the slick web-site comment. I can't take the credit, as much as possible I copied another web-site out there in terms of layout and added my info.

Pat Sherman · September 30th, 2005, 10:30 AM

auto foc..what?

A.J. Briones · September 30th, 2005, 02:01 PM

may i ask what you are shooting with now?

RE: film look
film look is more than just 24p. for me, the one disadvantage to shooting 24p is the lack of flexibility with slowing shots down in post. i used to shoot with an xl1 in frame mode (30p, well, 30f to be technically correct) and you have less to work with if you want to get slow motion. before i moved to an all vx workflow, i started shooting in 60i so i had more options in the editing room. with 60i i can go all the way down to 5% and still get good footage.

imho, even if you shoot in 24p, the color and dof give away the fact that you are shooting in video, and are more prominent than framerate. running an mb filter over any camera's footage goes further than mere 24p. then again, that's just one guy's opinion. use what works for you and create your style. get advice, but ultimately, go with what makes you happy, even if it's contrary to what anyone here says.

i love the dvx, and it was a very tough decision to go with the vx over the dvx. cost and low light performance won me over to the vx. 24p may be worth more than low light to you, and as such, get the dvx.

also, i used to shoot in a mixed environment (canon, sony, panny), and i don't recommend it. the time and headache associated with color matching bring back bad memories.

good luck, and let us know what you end up going with.

Kevin Shaw · September 30th, 2005, 07:43 PM

I'd suggest waiting a little longer to see how things shake out with the latest high-definition cameras, and to see whether demand for widescreen/HD video picks up significantly in the near future. In a year or two it could become difficult to market 4:3 SD video to high-end customers.

Matt Trubac · September 30th, 2005, 09:38 PM

Hey,

I have been using DVX's but recently sold them due to recommendations on this board. I purchased a new PD-170 and a slightly used VX2100. I have been quite happy with the cameras so far. The minimal amount of noise in the picture with the gain up is excellent. Much better than the DVX which had visible noise at 0dB. The DVX tended to have poorly saturated colors in lower light.

On the other hand, if I weren't doing weddings, I would rather have the DVX's any day. Overall I think they have a much better feature set for the money... but for low-light wedding videography, I can now see first hand where the Sonys have the edge.

I picked up my PD-170 on ebay for $2325 - New In Box +$25 for shipping. Everything was still sealed, and the camera came with a Sony U.S. warranty.

Just my .02

Peter Jefferson · October 1st, 2005, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Costa

OTOH, if you can deal with the light level differences, I think the DVX has picture options and control that blows away every other camera out there. I have never done a side-by-sde for light levels, or seen one done that was unbiased (optimizing each camera with different approach as needed).

here in pal land, the lux difference is very minimal, the pd jsut ever slightly higher in reaching gain, however this is only useful to you if u like that warm sony look.. coz to be honest, irespective of low light performance, you should be runnign a light (when needed) .. Id rather have a well lit environment, or even a 35w light on a stand near the dancefloor as oppsed to offering a dark brown washed out, colourless video simply coz i was too proud to admit that i need to run a light... or that it went against the stigma of "you shoudlnt use light"

Some dipshit years ago decide to advertise that they dont need light.. little did they realise this would set a precendent for inferior products and misinformation to the gneral public...

as for progrexxive vs interlaced, ive harped on about this for too many years to make a difference now.. however, i shoot progressive when im NOT dong slowmos... and interlaced when im doing fast motion shots, or shots where im planning slow mos. In post and delivery, its all progressive..

September 29th, 2005, 04:08 PM	#1
Darin Holiday Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Shelby, NC Posts: 49	Poll (Should I Do This?) I am thinking about buying 3 Panasonic AG-DVD100a's. I do wedding video productions full-time. Thanks

September 29th, 2005, 09:12 PM	#4
Bob Costa Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Venice, FL Posts: 850	OTOH, if you can deal with the light level differences, I think the DVX has picture options and control that blows away every other camera out there. I have never done a side-by-sde for light levels, or seen one done that was unbiased (optimizing each camera with different approach as needed). __________________ You are either growing or dying.

September 30th, 2005, 08:01 AM	#7
Darin Holiday Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Shelby, NC Posts: 49	I own cameras I didn't mean to imply that I am a newbie. I am trying to emulate film as much as possible. I like the thought process behind the DVX and I think the "look" would suit my needs, but I'm not sure about the performance, (low-light, auto focus in progressive mode, etc...) and thanks for the slick web-site comment. I can't take the credit, as much as possible I copied another web-site out there in terms of layout and added my info.

September 30th, 2005, 09:38 PM	#11
Matt Trubac Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Grand Rapids, MI Posts: 286	Hey, I have been using DVX's but recently sold them due to recommendations on this board. I purchased a new PD-170 and a slightly used VX2100. I have been quite happy with the cameras so far. The minimal amount of noise in the picture with the gain up is excellent. Much better than the DVX which had visible noise at 0dB. The DVX tended to have poorly saturated colors in lower light. On the other hand, if I weren't doing weddings, I would rather have the DVX's any day. Overall I think they have a much better feature set for the money... but for low-light wedding videography, I can now see first hand where the Sonys have the edge. I picked up my PD-170 on ebay for $2325 - New In Box +$25 for shipping. Everything was still sealed, and the camera came with a Sony U.S. warranty. Just my .02 __________________ Matt Trubac

September 29th, 2005, 04:09 PM	#2
Darin Holiday Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Shelby, NC Posts: 49	I mean AG-DVX100a's.

September 30th, 2005, 06:51 AM	#5
Pat Sherman Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: DuPont, Wa Posts: 325	I for one would put my money on the PD-150/170 against the panny for low light and still having good saturation anytime.. I think the combo suggested would give you a good aresenal of tools..

September 30th, 2005, 10:30 AM	#8
Pat Sherman Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: DuPont, Wa Posts: 325	auto foc..what?

September 30th, 2005, 02:01 PM	#9
A.J. Briones Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 275	may i ask what you are shooting with now? RE: film look film look is more than just 24p. for me, the one disadvantage to shooting 24p is the lack of flexibility with slowing shots down in post. i used to shoot with an xl1 in frame mode (30p, well, 30f to be technically correct) and you have less to work with if you want to get slow motion. before i moved to an all vx workflow, i started shooting in 60i so i had more options in the editing room. with 60i i can go all the way down to 5% and still get good footage. imho, even if you shoot in 24p, the color and dof give away the fact that you are shooting in video, and are more prominent than framerate. running an mb filter over any camera's footage goes further than mere 24p. then again, that's just one guy's opinion. use what works for you and create your style. get advice, but ultimately, go with what makes you happy, even if it's contrary to what anyone here says. i love the dvx, and it was a very tough decision to go with the vx over the dvx. cost and low light performance won me over to the vx. 24p may be worth more than low light to you, and as such, get the dvx. also, i used to shoot in a mixed environment (canon, sony, panny), and i don't recommend it. the time and headache associated with color matching bring back bad memories. good luck, and let us know what you end up going with.

September 30th, 2005, 07:43 PM	#10
Kevin Shaw Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 2,488	I'd suggest waiting a little longer to see how things shake out with the latest high-definition cameras, and to see whether demand for widescreen/HD video picks up significantly in the near future. In a year or two it could become difficult to market 4:3 SD video to high-end customers.